The Second Amendment Was Never Meant to Protect an Individual’s Right to a Gun

[Brown_Pride]

And yet it doesn't mention the idea of personal self defense at all, it mentions militias and the security of the "state":


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

No it doesn't, it also doesn't say you CANNOT have guns, BUT does clearly state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms...", which is not contingent on a Militia or membership in a militia. A well regulated militia is necessary for a free state, this is a reason the right to own guns should not be infringed.

The point to all of this is that the constitution does NOT give us the right to own guns. That RIGHT is a god given right, e.g. not endowed upon us by government documentation, it is a right we have regardless of the explicit stating of it (even though it explicitly states the we, the people, have a right to guns and that the government cannot infringe on that right.

 

[CHL]

If you feel fine being a victim and not resorting to any defensive maneuvers thats perfectly cool breh. Thats your life and you're free to do with it what you want. If I have the opportunity to defend my own life in a worst case scenario, I'm going to take it.

I don't sit around hoping to blow someones head off if they break in but I do want the opportunity to defend my life, family, and property in the most effective way possible if that one in a million situation happens. Its the same thing as having a baseball bat bat by the door, just more effective. You don't need vigilante justice to protect your own life. Thats some nonsense right there. Goes right back to my first post. "Oh its cool breh steal everything you want and traumatize me for life and hopefully that good old justice system that no one believes in will fix it".

How are you going to defend yourself when @ADevilYouKhow comes and takes your private property in a Communist revolution?

 

[88m3]

I hope someone who you think is trying to rob you comes in your home and you shoot them and you go to prison for being a paranoid weirdo

lmao

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

How are you going to defend yourself when @ADevilYouKhow comes and takes your private property in a Communist revolution?

The first piece of property we take is the guns and then it's a wrap. We've been planning.

 

[CHL]

The first piece of property we take is the guns and then it's a wrap. We've been planning.

They will be crushed and destroyed. Takbir

 

[ghostwriterx]

No it doesn't, it also doesn't say you CANNOT have guns, BUT does clearly state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms...", which is not contingent on a Militia or membership in a militia. A well regulated militia is necessary for a free state, this is a reason the right to own guns should not be infringed.

LOL the framers just chose to start this "right" with that language for no reason, huh?

1st Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Much clearer 2nd Amendment
"Congress shall make no law prohibiting the ownership of arms."

See how easy that was? Wonder why they didn't word it like that?

The point to all of this is that the constitution does NOT give us the right to own guns. That RIGHT is a god given right, e.g. not endowed upon us by government documentation, it is a right we have regardless of the explicit stating of it (even though it explicitly states the we, the people, have a right to guns and that the government cannot infringe on that right.

LOL we do not have a god given right to own guns. We do not have a god given right to anybody's product. I mean that's basically slavery, just ask @DEAD7

 

[DEAD7]

LOL we do not have a god given right to own guns. We do not have a god given right to anybody's product. I mean that's basically slavery, just ask @DEAD7

 

[Drip Bayless]

Give a population of racists hopped up on prescription pills weapons of mass murder brehs

 

[Brown_Pride]

LOL the framers just chose to start this "right" with that language for no reason, huh?

1st Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Much clearer 2nd Amendment
"Congress shall make no law prohibiting the ownership of arms."

See how easy that was? Wonder why they didn't word it like that?



LOL we do not have a god given right to own guns. We do not have a god given right to anybody's product. I mean that's basically slavery, just ask @DEAD7

They also didn't say, "People can have guns so that they can have a militia, but ONLY if they are part of a militia." wonder why ? .... what's your point.

Like it or not they, not me, called access to guns a RIGHT, and if you know anything about the founding fathers and our constitution concerning rights they are natural and their regardless of a governments explicit definition of them. They even went so far as to, if you read a little further, create the 9th amendment, just in case people got confused as to which rights, and products, people have access to. So YES you have a RIGHT to guns. You have a RIGHT to many things that aren't explicitly denied or prohibited in the constitution. You have a right to buy flower, cotton, etc, etc. That last point of yours was a stretch.

 

[ghostwriterx]

health care/guns
tomato/tomato

 

[ghostwriterx]

They also didn't say, "People can have guns so that they can have a militia, but ONLY if they are part of a militia." wonder why ? .... what's your point.

Why do you think they included "well regulated militia" and "security of a free state"? If this is an individual right, why do those things matter?

Like it or not they, not me, called access to guns a RIGHT, and if you know anything about the founding fathers and our constitution concerning rights they are natural and their regardless of a governments explicit definition of them. They even went so far as to, if you read a little further, create the 9th amendment, just in case people got confused as to which rights, and products, people have access to. So YES you have a RIGHT to guns. You have a RIGHT to many things that aren't explicitly denied or prohibited in the constitution. You have a right to buy flower, cotton, etc, etc. That last point of yours was a stretch.

So do you think the government can make any law restricting gun ownership?

 

[Brown_Pride]

Why do you think they included "well regulated militia" and "security of a free state"? If this is an individual right, why do those things matter?

Sounds like they were laying out the idea of a militia being ok and then said in order for a militia to exist people's right to own weapons should not be infringed up? You're reading the same text i'm reading right? Do you need me to interpret anything else for you?

So do you think the government can make any law restricting gun ownership?

It can. And it has. Your point is?

 

[ghostwriterx]

Sounds like they were laying out the idea of a militia being ok and then said in order for a militia to exist people's right to own weapons should not be infringed up? You're reading the same text i'm reading right? Do you need me to interpret anything else for you?

Hmmm... sounds like a dodge to me. If its an individual right unconnected to a well regulated militia there's absolutely no reason to include that text there. That text is essentially a clause outlining when people can own weapons. Far from an unfettered right. If nothing else it's incredibly poor wording.

It can. And it has. Your point is?

Do you think it should/can in a constitutionally legal way?

 

[rantanamo]

Is this really constitutional to some of you, or do you just want to have guns?

 

[Brown_Pride]

Hmmm... sounds like a dodge to me. If its an individual right unconnected to a well regulated militia there's absolutely no reason to include that text there. That text is essentially a clause outlining when people can own weapons. Far from an unfettered right. If nothing else it's incredibly poor wording.



Do you think it should/can in a constitutionally legal way?

The whole amendment, to be frank, has nothing to do with gun ownership IMHO and more to do with a militia. The assumption of "the right of the people to own a gun" is made by the text itself, that right, which isn't outlined or defined in the text, isn't to be infringed upon, SO THAT a state can form a militia. You're reading it in the inverse of how I read it. You're interpretation is that states have a right to a well regulated militia, therefore people can own guns...?
Yes it is very poorly worded regardless of how you want to make sense of it.
The text is essentially a clause outlining that states need well regulated militias and that they should be drawn from the people who have the right to gun ownership and that the ownership of guns should not be infringed.

No dodging just interpretation of the text as I see it.

Why don't you just come out with what your trying to get at with your questions? You and I both know they can and have. Just as they've allowed for murder/state sanction murder by execution. I think it can. I think it should.